Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology 2022

Running head: CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN
CRIMINOLOGY 1
Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology
Name
Institution

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 2
Critical Comparison and Analysis of Theories in Criminology
Introduction
Criminology can be conceptualized with reference to theories which have been coined,
criticized and improved over time. In this regard, critical theory which has evolved from earlier
radical theory forms the backbone of this paper. It is segmented into three parts, precisely-
introduction, earlier radical theory, critical theory, and conclusion.
Earlier Radical Theory
Earlier radical theorists centered their propositions on the materials and treatises based on
Marxist principle. Karl Marx coined the principle, the basis of earlier radical theorists thinking
after considering a number of variables namely- law, power, social and economic control. Karl
Marx propounded a principle to the effect that upper class (bourgeoisie) as opposed lower class
(proletariat) controls factors of production and therefore influences a number of important
decisions in society (Young, Taylor, & Walton, 1975). In extrapolation of the above principle,
earlier radical theorists believe that law is that which state enacts and enforces. In their
considered view; state actors are controlled by the upper class (Young et al., 1975). As a result;
as opposed to the laws that find themselves in the statute books as well as public policy being the
general consensus of the societal tenets, they are instead a reflection of the interest of the upper
class (Young et al., 1975). Undoubtedly therefore, laws are couched and applied in a manner that
preserves the status quo; status quo being social, economic and political arrangements working in
favor of the upper class.
According to radical theorists, punishment meted out in the criminal justice system has
the sole purpose of serving the interest of the powerful. This in their view stems from the

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 3
criminalized acts which cover in most cases acts committed in the streets as opposed to offices
(Lynch & Groves, 1989). It is their position that, whenever there is a threat to the political, social
and economic order; antiterrorism measures whose consequences are dire and destructive are
invoked with an aim of instilling fear and to shield status quo from being pierced (Lynch &
Groves, 1989).
Feminist theory also form part of earlier radical theory. According to feminist theorists,
criminology was so masculinized that missed out on the important and indispensable factors such
as right of women and the need of their contribution in the criminal justice system (Gundy,
2014). Feminists noted that the laws that were applied were aloof of the plight of women as
victims of crime denying them access and the benefit of the law as was enjoyed by men
(Carrington & Hogg, 2002). They therefore insisted on elimination of barriers towards access to
criminal justice system by women and in effect remove gender as a form of inequality that
impact administration of criminal laws.
Critical Theory
Critical theorists sought to explain the interplay between crime and law based on the
prepositions that were made by earlier theorists. They appreciated previous postulations and held
that what constitutes a crime is that which law decrees as such (Quinney, 1970). These theorists
posit that crime is inextricably tied to inequalities that manifest in the societal engagements
(Quinney, 1970). In their considered opinion; as opposed to traditional point of view that some
earlier radical theorists had, inequalities that exist are not limited to upper and lower class
(Quinney, 1970). Accordingly, race and gender also form part and parcel of inequalities that
must be considered based on changing times that brings to fore dynamism that must be adopted
in interpretation of concepts (Quinney, 1970).

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 4
As opposed to the position put forward by earlier radical theorists which was to the effect
that law originates from the upper class and a tool in its hands in meeting its interest; according
to critical theorists, laws are a product of the society and operate in the society (Quinney, 1970).
Societal engagements such as politics and economics have a bearing in laws that are enacted and
promulgated. It is there position and logically so that law reflects the society and their
implementation ought to satisfy and meet social goals.
In critical theorists point of view, laws have makers and implementers who form a
segment of the society. In their belief, the makers of the law who are not necessarily the upper
and middle class more often than not hold sway not only on the law making process but also the
textual nature of the laws (Slapper & Tombs, 1999). Accordingly therefore, interest of the
makers of the laws may form the better part of promulgated laws. In the same vein, they are
convinced that the implementers of the laws may be prejudicial in their mode of operations such
that their interests are granted overarching consideration in comparison the interest of the larger
majority. Consequently, what constitutes a crime and what is implemented as such is tied to what
a clique of individuals opine and hold to be so.
In a sharp contention against positions traditionally held, critical theorists examined white
collar crimes and corporate crimes. On the one hand, white collar crimes are classified to be
those crimes committed at work and in the course of business such as fraud and embezzlement
(Sutherland, 1940). On the other hand, corporate crimes entails crimes committed by
businesses/corporations or by people on behalf of those corporations (Slapper & Tombs, 1999).
They noted that white collar and corporate crimes are on the rise and of current the most
rampant. These crimes, in critical theorists estimation have made a mark among individuals of all
walks of life; as logically speaking and putting to account reality, currently white collar jobs are

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 5
offered by both private and public corporations which employ individuals across the board. They
noted that perpetrators of white collar crimes are in most cases victimized in the same manner
Critical theorists also delved into the questions such as; whether or not the government
can commit crime, and what legal recourse should be pursued concerning crimes committed by
the government. In answering these critical questions, critical theorists sought to define what
amounts to a crime by government. Their answer was that they cover those crimes engaged in by
the government itself or its actors (Ross, 2000). These crimes in their considered view must be
legally redressed and must not go unpunished irrespective of the government being the maker,
interpreter, and executor of the law. They noted a number of instances such as repercussions that
Iraq was exposed to under the auspices of international law when it attacked Kuwait (Kramer &
Michalowski, 2005).
Critical theorist are fervent in supporting a position to the effect that; neither persons
whether natural or juristic nor states or governments ought to be immune to criminal culpability
or responsibility. It is their position that under international law lie avenues that may be pursued
against states and individuals for acts and omissions. They gave examples of where jus cogens
principles under international law may impel liability in case of an omission for instance where a
state fails to intervene in a case of genocide, servitude and torture (Kauzlarich, Mullins, &
Matthews, 2003).
However much most critical theorists support the position that criminal culpability
applies indifferently to all including the government; some believe that an embargo could be
erected in form of conspiracy between government officials and corporate bodies to defeat long
arms of criminal justice system (Kramer et al., 2002). They explained the above by giving
example of instances where public officials may be bribed into refusing to investigate acts and

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 6
omissions capable of attracting criminal culpability or engage in acts which may amount to
doctoring and massaging investigations for favorable outcomes. In their opinion, the above is
facilitated by the fact that political players and top government officials are more often than not
financed and supported by corporation when they are seeking elective and appointive positions.
They are therefore conflicted and vulnerable to manipulative tendencies of their
financiers/supporters.
In sum, critical theorists are liberal and pragmatic in their understanding of criminology.
They root for expansive and flexible construction of what constitutes crime. In their considered
view, definition of crime must be that which covers all acts and omissions that oppress the
vulnerable (Burke, 2014). Thus far; in a bid to satisfy the need to be pragmatic and progressive, a
branch of critical theory has emerged dubbed Green Criminology whose aim is to canvass acts
committed against non-human victims for example environment (Lynch, 1990).
Conclusion
In conclusion; it is inevitable that earlier radical theorists which brings together Marxist
principle and Feminist theory introduced sound postulations which hold sway to date in a
number of aspects of criminal justice system. Critical theorists built upon the foundational stone
laid by radical theorists to come up with articulated positions. It is noteworthy, that critical
theorists not only improved the patchwork by radical theorists and ensured it has seen manifold
transformation but also innovated new aspects that must be reinforced for a robust criminal
justice system. This will ensure that criminal justice system is devoid of loopholes that may be
exploited by the mischievous to rob the system of its intended purposes.

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 7
References
Burke L. (2014). Delivering Rehabilitation: the politics, governance and control of
probation. London: Routledge
Carrington K. & Hogg R. (2002). Critical criminology: issues, debates and challenges. Taylor
and Francis.
Kauzlarich D., Mullins C. & Matthews R. (2003). A complicity continuum of state
crime, Contemporary Justice Review, 6:3, 241-254.
Lynch J. M. (1999). Race, Gender, and Class in Criminology: The Intersections. London.
Routledge
Quinney, R. (1980). Class, State, & Crime. New York: Longman
Ronald C. Kramer R. J. Michalowski. (2005). War, Aggression and State Crime: A
Criminological Analysis of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. The British
Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 446–469
Ross A. (2000). Curriculum: Construction and Critique. Psychology press.
Slapper, G. and Tombs S. (1999). Corporate crime. Harlow: Longman.
Sutherland, E. (1940). White-Collar Criminality. American Sociological Review, 1-12.
Van Gundy, A. (2014). Feminist theory, crime and social justice. Oxford: Elsevier.
Young R. E. (1988). Critical Teaching and Learning. Educational Theory. Winter, 38(1).

CRITICAL COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 8
Young, J., Taylor, I., & Walton, P. (1975). Critical Criminology. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.